Are you worth saving?

[AqD]

was just watching Messiah and suppose it's not far from reality when Jesus was alive.

---

One thing completely skipped in the story, though, is that so many people somehow believe they're worth to be saved. How can that be?

Let's say you're a normal person, never steal or lie too big, donate to poor and follow God's laws whenever it's convenient.

But, there are billions of humans out there - much more than the numbers of rats, dolphins and turtles, with extremely short lifespan of no more than 100 years. Not to mention most humans leave no footprint in civilization except tons of garbage and CO2, and everything you do in your entire life can be duplicated or surpassed by another in just a few decades.

What does those make you? Certainly not unique, not special, no better than a monkey in lab or an ant in colony, or some single cell creature. You could die today, a few (out of 7 billions) would weep, then they'd die too and all would be forgotten.

God has billions of kids just like that. So why would he help you with your stupid problems at all? Why not just sit and wait for next human to be born and grow up in a blink of time, who might end up something greater? In fact, why would he even want to listen or watch? Humans come and go everyday, like tree leaves falling off - who would bother to check that?

[Akar]

Meh, who cares. God isn't real. Trying to extract some deeper meaning or logic from an inherently meaningless and illogical text will get you nowhere.

[CommodusV]

Well, that's no fun. Granted, I'm not the one to do it, but there is surely logic one could derive and present for the topic.

[Akar]

Nuh uh!

[Derc]

What has already been lost cannot be saved.

Go save yourself. Time requires it.

[Slaytaninc]

God is both omniscient and omnipotent. He's not limited in the number of people he can save. We cannot be saved on Earth if that's what you're asking.

[antaeus]

In the greater scheme of things... cold heat death will get us all. So "saving" is relative.

[Sar1n]

I hope I'm worth saving, at least as a .gif. Hopefully, I'll make to .pdf. Not a .jpg peasants like you.

[basics]

It is written that " all fall short of the glory of God," and so no-one is worthy of saving. The Ten Commandments were given to show all men just how far that is. Therefore if anyone thinks that he or she keeps those commandments every second of their lives they kid themselves on. It is why Jesus Christ came into the world as a man yet still God so that by sacrificing Himself, the purety of His blood could satisfy the Law and that by the one and only way, rebirth. So, there being no league tables about who can be saved it comes down to God by Grace choosing certain sinners the very chance of new life regardless of whatever they might have done in their lives.

[conon394]

The Ten Commandments were given to show all men just how far that is

Poor implementation than by god giving his law to one backward set of Iron age people with no particular command to proselytize not an understanding of how big the world was for example (the genealogy bits of the OT make it pretty clear their world view was simplistic and no bigger than the Middle East).

[AqD]

Meh, who cares. God isn't real. Trying to extract some deeper meaning or logic from an inherently meaningless and illogical text will get you nowhere.

Except it isn't about God, or religion.

Some other day, there was a young fellow who apparently got cancer and complained about his government not offering free treatment (that is, costly services paid by his neighbors), that he'd probably die without that.

You could tell he's smarter, since he chose to put hope on something closer and proved physical.

There are countless people just like him or her, poor kids, poor families having too many kids, birth defections, accidents, refugees, failed businessmen, etc, etc.

And no, we're not here to discuss how to utilize our tax money for disaster relief, or whether people have inherent desire to survive.

It is a simple question whether you think you're worth saving if you're in deep trouble. Why should anyone help you at all? What's your value? Why not let you die or continue your misery, since we'd all perish soon? I showed on the first post most humans are not irreplaceable and that the demise of human beings is just as common as tree leaves falling, so what's the point?

PS: I'd stress that helping your neighbors in the hope you might be helped one day is the same as paying for insurance or tax in socialist environment, which is driven by profit and beyond the scope here.

@basics, so, you agree with me that the simple answer is no?

[Akar]

Some other day, there was a young fellow who apparently got cancer and complained about his government not offering free treatment (that is, costly services paid by his neighbors), that he'd probably die without that.

And also paid by HIM assuming he's a tax payer. That's the entire concept of a society and government, the social safety net. If you don't want any of the benefits of society, go live by yourself in the jungle or some .

PS: I'd stress that helping your neighbors in the hope you might be helped one day is the same as paying for insurance or tax in socialist environment, which is driven by profit and beyond the scope here.

Huh? No it's not. Altruism is inherent in pretty much every mammal species that I am aware of. It is a trait that is evolutionary advantageous to develop and maintain.

I showed on the first post most humans are not irreplaceable and that the demise of human beings is just as common as tree leaves falling, so what's the point?

Again, huh? You didn't "show" anything, you made baseless claims without backing it up with evidence or logic.

It is a simple question whether you think you're worth saving if you're in deep trouble.

Yes, everyone is worth saving. We aren't at a point where we have to ration out help or care anymore, so why not help everyone you can?

I hope I'm worth saving, at least as a .gif. Hopefully, I'll make to .pdf. Not a .jpg peasants like you.

I've saved you as a .psd so I can come back and fiddle around with you later .

[basics]

AqD,

Saving from what though? Perhaps saving from Akar? Look, God's word tells us that no-one is worthy of saving. The other side of the fence says what is there to be saved from as when we die that's it, nothing else. Death strikes at any time and any moment so if there is a salvation there is only One Source for it and that comes not from or by man but by our Creator's Grace.

[Akar]

Basics,

So you're just ignoring the part where he specifically said this isn't about god or religion, then?

Except it isn't about God, or religion.

[Prodromos]

Poor implementation than by god giving his law to one backward set of Iron age people with no particular command to proselytize not an understanding of how big the world was for example (the genealogy bits of the OT make it pretty clear their world view was simplistic and no bigger than the Middle East).

That ignores general revelation, though

Romans 2

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

[Dick Cheney.]

In a perfect state of nature there is no judge, there are no laws, there is no sin, and there is no morality. Concepts of justice and injustice do not exist, man is wolf to man, and might makes right.

Therefore we (as human beings living without laws, gods, or government) are compelled to protect ourselves by whatever actions we deem necessary. It is only logical then, and not completely blameworthy, to conclude that you have a natural right to self-preservation and self-defense.

There is no telling what we might have to do in order to survive when there are no laws and nobody is there to make these decisions for us. That we were brought to life against our will in a dangerous world of all against all, only solidifies your claim to life and self-preservation over the lives and interests of others.

You therefore, by default, are worth saving.

[Sir Adrian]

Everybody is worth saving and everybody will be saved as long as they believe and and put on the "yoke" of Christ (and no simply shouting Jesus all day is not enough).

[Donny Crane]

You are assuming god isn't smart enough to set up an automatic positive feedback loop, turns out humans are fairly sure he could maybe come up with a more sophisticated feedback loop or indeed have an intellect capable of dealing with infinite requests and processing said feedback loops.

I think you fell into the anthropomorphic issue of assuming said god has capacity of a human or just a super human.

I say all this as an atheist btw.

[pacifism]

I think that for a lot of Christians there is some point they have to resolve for themselves the tension between the theological concept of original sin with their belief in human rights and whatnot. It’s obvious enough why: due to sin, no one truly deserves anything but hell and no one has any meaningful standing before God, and yet all people are also supposed to have irrevocable rights for their livelihood and being treated with dignity. I suppose there is also a slightly more nihilistic approach to the question of why its worth the bother to make any sacrifice to improve anyone’s life, which basically causes the same basic ideas to be at odds.

In that case, I think that there are plenty of ways individuals can reconcile these two things. The most obvious one to me is that we accept that people have rights because we are all equal persons and ostensibly nothing makes one person’s life more valuable than another’s. In the Christian perspective, there is a clear limit to how much one sinner is morally allowed to punish another for something. From a nihilist perspective, since life has no inherent meaning … there is no point to unnecessary suffering, I guess?

In a perfect state of nature there is no judge, there are no laws, there is no sin, and there is no morality. Concepts of justice and injustice do not exist, man is wolf to man, and might makes right.

Therefore we (as human beings living without laws, gods, or government) are compelled to protect ourselves by whatever actions we deem necessary. It is only logical then, and not completely blameworthy, to conclude that you have a natural right to self-preservation and self-defense.

There is no telling what we might have to do in order to survive when there are no laws and nobody is there to make these decisions for us. That we were brought to life against our will in a dangerous world of all against all, only solidifies your claim to life and self-preservation over the lives and interests of others.

You therefore, by default, are worth saving.

One thing about laws and governments is that they are supposed to be a better existence for people than when they live in a perfect state of nature. However, the state is totally unnecessary in a state of perfect nature. Both the perfect state of nature and the state of perfect nature would have no laws in it. When considering the concept of governments and their violent operations, I think it’s important to remember that the true Eden that governments are supposed to be pursuing is one without a need for governments in the first place.

At a certain point, when considering how moral governments even are, there are important caveats. Almost every major atrocity in human history was committed by governments. Governments supposedly prevent violence by monopolizing it, and they continue to operate only because they can overpower any external invasion or internal dissident.

[Sir Adrian]

I think that for a lot of Christians there is some point they have to resolve for themselves the tension between the theological concept of original sin with their belief in human rights and whatnot. It’s obvious enough why: due to sin, no one truly deserves anything but hell and no one has any meaningful standing before God, and yet all people are also supposed to have irrevocable rights for their livelihood and being treated with dignity. I suppose there is also a slightly more nihilistic approach to the question of why its worth the bother to make any sacrifice to improve anyone’s life, which basically causes the same basic ideas to be at odds.

That is a false dychotomy if I ever saw one. God gave man free will. Man chose to use that free will to turn away from God. God loves man and will accept man back if man does the most minimal of effort and repents. What does any of this have to do with human dignity and other concepts that only really exist in a handfull of countries?

In that case, I think that there are plenty of ways individuals can reconcile these two things. The most obvious one to me is that we accept that people have rights because we are all equal persons and ostensibly nothing makes one person’s life more valuable than another’s. In the Christian perspective, there is a clear limit to how much one sinner is morally allowed to punish another for something. From a nihilist perspective, since life has no inherent meaning … there is no point to unnecessary suffering, I guess?

Christians are not allowed to punish sinners at all. "Le he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that. Hate the sin, love the sinner is one of the mandatory rules you have to live by if you want to be a Christian.